1

4-ps 23-21 corrected

Prajakta Vartak

BEFORE THE PARSI CHIEF MATRIMONIAL COURT AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

PARSI SUIT NO.23 OF 2021

Rohinton Minoo Surty

..Plaintiff No.1

And

Kashmira Rohinton Surty

..Plaintiff No.2

-----

Ms. Armaity Khushrushahi with Ms. Nerissa Almeida for Plaintiff No.1.

Ms. Lipsa Unadkat and Ms. Sanaya Dadachanji i/b. M/s. Manilal Kher

Ambalal & Co. for Plaintiff No.2.

-----

CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI, J.

DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

This is a suit for divorce by mutual consent filed under Section

32B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (for short, “1936 Act”)

whereby plaintiff no.1 Rohinton Minoo Surty and plaintiff no.2

Kashmira Rohinton Surty are before the Court praying that the marriage

solemnized between them on 21 December, 2004 at Dadyseth

Atasbehram, Dadyseth Agiary Lane, Fanaswadi, Mumbai – 400 002 be

dissolved and a decree of divorce be pronounced under the provisions of

Section 32B of the 1936 Act.

2.

The relevant facts as stated by the parties are:- Plaintiff no.1, who

was a divorcee, got married to plaintiff no.2, then a spinster (nee

Kashmira Aspi Dadachanji). Their marriage was initially registered

under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 by the Marriage Officer, Thane on

2

4-ps 23-21 corrected

24 September, 2004. However, as desired by the plaintiffs, parents and

relatives, a marriage ceremony of the plaintiffs according to the Parsi

Zoroastrian rites and customs, was performed on 21 December, 2004 at

Dadyseth Atasbehram, Dadyseth Agiary Lane, Fanaswadi, Mumbai – 400

002. Such marriage was registered by the Registrar of Parsi Marriages,

High Court, Bombay on 22 December, 2004. The Certificate of

Marriage is annexed at Exhibit “A” to the plaint. There is no dispute on

this document. As set out in paragraph 3 of the plaint, after the

plaintiffs marriage the plaintiffs were residing in different foreign

countries.

3.

There are no children born from the marriage. The plaintiffs have

stated that within few years of their marriage, there were

temperamental issues between the plaintiffs, which caused serious

differences between them. This resulted into the plaintiffs ceasing to co-

habit. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that they

have not cohabited as husband and wife since 18 March, 2018. They

have also stated that there is an irretrievable breakdown of their

marriage and no purpose would be served by continuance of the

marriage which has broken down irretrievably. This, despite

innumerable efforts having been made by the plaintiffs as well as their

family members and friends to bring about a reconciliation. The

plaintiffs have also stated that as per the Parsi matrimonial law, the

3

4-ps 23-21 corrected

plaintiffs being married as per the “aashirwaad” ceremony, it is

imperative that the marriage is dissolved under the 1936 Act.

4.

However, there is a peculiarity as set out by the plaintiffs in

paragraph 9 of the plaint and as briefly noted above, that prior to the

plaintiffs getting married as per the Parsi Zoroastrian rites and customs

on 21 December, 2004, as per the procedure under the Special Marriage

Act, their marriage was registered under the Special Marriage Act. This

marriage came to be registered by the Marriage Officer on 24

September, 2004. As the plaintiffs decided to part ways by dissolving

their marriage in a manner known to law, they had applied for a decree

of divorce by mutual consent before the Family Court at Thane, by filing

proceedings under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The

Family Court at Thane considering the plaintiffs’ plea granted a decree

of divorce by mutual consent on 06 January, 2022 in the proceedings of

PF No. 701 of 2021. Accordingly, the plaintiffs marriage as registered

under the Special Marriage Act on 24 September, 2004 has stood

dissolved.

5.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiffs have filed the present

proceedings now praying for annulm